Leebaert+v.+Harrington

 **Michael Mooney Week One Court Case Number 9 **  **Leebaert v. Harrington, 332 F. 3d 134 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 2003 ** **Background: ** Mr. Turk Leebaert, on behalf of his son Corky Leebaert, filed suit against the Fairfield Public School System's Roger Ludlowe Middle School stating that the school’s position on mandatory attendance to the health education classes provided is unconstitutional on the grounds that it infringes on Mr. Leebaert’s fundamental rights to raise and educate his child as he sees fit. Roger Ludlowe Middle School has stated that they are in accordance with the Connecticut State Law that requires them to provide this health education class but also allows any student, including Corky, to be excused for the family-life instruction or AIDS education portion of the class, which is also in accordance with the state law. There has already been an established precedent regarding the attendance of the children to these health education classes. One such case was //Reno v. Flores,// 507 U.S. 292, 305, 113 S.Ct. 1439, 123 L.Ed.2d 1 (1993).

**Decision and Rationale: ** The courts found in favor of the defendants, Fairfield Public School System's Roger Ludlowe Middle School, stating that the school was within its rights to require students to attend the health classes that were not family planning or AIDS education. The courts used several precedents and arguments to refute Mr. Leebaert’s claims. Most of the arguments were centered around the rulings that parental rights for their children do not supersede the required public schooling of the community. As a close to the proceedings, the courts defended the //Wisconsin v. Yoder,// 406 U.S. 205, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972) decision where the courts upheld the Amish people’s concerns that the schooling was a detriment to the way of life of the Amish. The long established tradition was a primary reason for this decision. Mr. Leebaerts claims were individually based and not a threat to the community as a whole.

**Impact on Teaching: ** I feel that the teachers and school that were involved with this decision would not feel an impact. They were within the law established by the state and provided a health education class as well as an option for students not to attend specific portions of the classes. If there are any lessons to be learned and built upon from a teacher perspective, it is the fact that there are those families who do not share the style and content that health education is taught. Teachers and administrators should feel stronger knowing that the courts are on their side when required education is the topic. I believe the more important impact is on the parents and families themselves. As shown in this particular case, the arguments that the plaintiff attempted to use to sway the courts were time and again turned aside. Unless there is a special case, like the Amish case in 1979, the courts will uphold the required public schooling laws over the rights the parents are claiming for the children.

**Question: ** The state law of Connecticut requires all students to attend all health education classes offered by the school. **TRUE** or **FALSE**

Jessica Oliver:

Leebaert v. Harrington/ Fairfield BOE United State Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit Argued: December 12, 2002 <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%; text-align: center;">Decided: June 13, 2003 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">Background: <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">Plantiff- Appellant, Mr. Turk Leebaert, on behalf of his minor son Corky Leebaert, filed for an appeal of the ruling of the district court which previously denied Mr. Leebaert’s motion. Mr. Leebaert alleged his First and Fourteenth Amendments rights were violated when his right to direct the upbringing and education of his minor child and his right to free exercise of his religion were violated. The Connecticut State Board of Education provides guidelines to local and regional school boards for teaching family life education courses, but it does require the schools to implement these courses. It does however require legally qualified teachers to incorporate ongoing lessons on the subject of acquired immune deficiency syndrome. The Fairfield school district’s curriculum does include family- life instruction or AIDS education during seventh grade health education. Parents have the right to opt their children out of the six days this topic is covered, but not the remainder of the health education course which includes topics such as drugs and alcohol, health and safety, and tobacco. Mr. Leebaert believed that it was his right to excuse his son from the entire health education course, and further stated that it was his position as a parent to educate his son in the areas of health, morals, sex and personal behavior. The curriculum for public school is decided by the by the school system and not the parent as decided in //Brown v. Hot//.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">Decision and Rationale: <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">The Court upheld the judgment of the district court. The ruling was that “requiring students to attend health education classes serves as a legitimate state interest and is reasonably related to that interest” (3). During the case of //Brown v. Hot// the court distinguished the terms concerning two of the cases that Mr. Leebaert brought forth which were //Meyer v. Nebraska// and //Pierce v. Society of Sisters. Brown// determines that parents do have a right to choose between public and private school, but there is no fundamental constitutional right of the parent to dictate the curriculum of the public school.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">Impact on Teaching: <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">Public schools follow many strict guidelines concerning school curriculum. The curriculum meets the needs of the diversified student body present at the schools. //Brown v. Hot// protects the public school institution from parents attempting to alter the curriculum for the specific needs of their child. A school system could not function properly if this were not the case. The classes students attend are required to meet a rational basis test which the health education class in Fairfield County met. In public schools today the burden is placed upon teachers to not only teach academia, but to also teach morals, and personal behavior. Although there are parents, such as Mr. Leebaert, who teach this in their homes, there are all too many children whose only guideline for behavior is taught in the school setting. Therefore, this is the reasoning behind the school curriculum including family life education programs.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">Question: <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">T or F: Parents are allowed to help determine the school curriculum for their child.

Chelsea Moody

Leebaert v. Harrington United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit Argued: December 12, 2002 Decided: June 13, 2003

Background: The Plaintiff, Turk Leebaert, filed suit against the Fairfield Public School System’s Roger Ludlowe Middle School, on behalf of his minor son Corky Leebaert, arguing that his constitutional right to direct the upbringing and education of his child requires Fairfield Public School System to excuse his son from attending health education classes at a public school administered by Roger Ludlowe Middle School. He argued that the removal of his son was a matter of constitutional law, and that the “fundamentals” of health were not the only health curriculum being taught. The defendant affirms that their mandatory curriculum must meet only the lower “rational basis” constitutional standard of review and that Leebaert’s assertion is not classified as “fundamental”.

Decision and Rationale: The courts ruled in favor of Fairfield Public School System’s Roger Ludlowe Middle School, stating that the requirements for Connecticut public-school curricula were within their rights to require students to attend the health classes taught by a legally qualified teacher and include the teach of health and safety but not limited to human growth and development, nutrition, first aid, disease prevention, community and consumer health, physical, mental and emotional health, including youth suicide prevention, substance abuse prevention, safety, which may include the dangers of gang membership, and accident prevention. The courts also showed that for such matters as the teaching of acquired immune deficiency syndrome [AIDS] parents would be given the option of removing their child from the class for that section of the health.

Impact on Teaching: There was no direct impact on teaching because the courts ruled in favor of the schools in this matter. However teachers should still be aware that there are families that do not feel comfortable with the school system teaching their children about various health related issues. It is always a good idea to recognize the prospective of the parents in these cases so you can get a better understanding of their point of view. In some instances, the matter of health teachings in a school system coincide with a families religious background, and those are some barriers that schools system try to avoid in any way possible because it is such a sensitive issue.

Question: Name at least three (3) subjects that must be taught by legally qualified teachers in the Connecticut public-school curricula.


 * posted by Joc'Lene Alston

Leebaert V. Harrington United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit Argued: Dec. 12, 2002


 * Background:**

The public school curriculum in the state of Connecticut is determined by Connecticut state law. Fairfield Public School Sytem's Roger Ludlowe Middle School has a seventh-grade health education curriculum. The school allows parents to excuse their children from 6 of the required classes. the classes are: health and safety, alcohol, tobacco and drugs, and family life. Parents could opt-out of these courses by notifying thie school principal, but th remainder of the required program is mandatory. Mr. Leebaert wrote a letter to the superintendent, Harrington, arguing that it was his 14th Amendment right to home school his son Corky in regards to health, morals, ethical, and moral behavior. Harrington responded to Mr. Leebaert stating that the required curriculum was mandatory. Harrington also reminded Mr. Leebaert of the opt-out policy in regards to the 6 classes that relates tp family ;ife instruction or AIDS education. Over the course of a few months, John Boyle (Ludlow Middle School Principal), Leebaert, and Harrison continue to correspond. Leebaert continues to inform the school system that his son Corky would not be attending any of the required curricula. Corky did not attend any of the clasxes and failed the course. In response, Leebaert filed suit against the Fairfield Board of Education on Oct. 22, 1999. He alleged that the defendents deprived him of his right to direct the upbringing and education of his child and his right to the free education of his religion in violation of the 1st and 14th Amendments tothe United States Constitution. Leebaert also requested that the failing grade his son recieved be withdrawn.

The second circuit court disagreed with the plaintiff and sided with the school district. They concluded that "Meyer Pierce and their progeny do not begin to suggest the existence of a fundamental right of every parent to tell a public school what his or her child will and will not be taught." They also went on to say rthat: "recognition of such a fundamental right-requiring a public school to establish that a course of instruction objected to by a parent was narrowly tailored to meet a compelling state interest before the school could employ it with respect to the parent's child-would make it diffficult or impossible for any public school authority to administer school curricula responsive to the overall educational needs of the community and its children."
 * Decision and Rationale:**

Because the school district won the decision, teachers are not effected by it. Yet, it is still important. Parents should be aware that the school district dictates what thier child can and can't learn. This decision is an important one. Without this rule, parents would have the authority to change the curriculum of a school at will. This would have a negative impact on teaching because the curriculum would be able to change and, in turn, teachers would have to adjust. Teachers may even be forced to satisfy parents. Therefore, compromising student education.
 * Impact on Teaching**:

True or False: Parents have the right to dictate what his or her child learns within a school system's curriculum.